Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Nov 6, 2008 8:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

I think it is a good question, and with our incredible escalating national debt and more bailouts on the horizon, and certainly worthy of debate. That said, I'll take the McCain approach to economics: I don't know as much as I should and defer to others with more intelligence in that arena. I do think it's good that Obama is taking advice from the likes of Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker (not exactly the far left fringe). I will ponder your question, but have you seen this recent report? Someone recently emailed it to me and it is worthy of a look (and I'm sure it contains its own biases - then again, wasn't the creation of supply side economic theory done on the back of a napkin? Where is David Stockman?):

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/supply_side.pdf

I'll return to this debate after the work day - got a hearing to prepare for tomorrow.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 6, 2008 12:37pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

BD: Thanks for your able participation. Besides you and WT, I wish I could say the same for others. Pretty disappointing, but I guess this really isn't the venue. I should have known better.

Anyway, here's what spawned my interest, it's a little rambling but seems fairly plausible. Like most, the theory is readily grasped, the effects and unintended consequences a little hazy;

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 6, 2008 5:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

>>>Anyway, here's what spawned my interest, it's a little rambling but seems fairly plausible. Like most, the theory is readily grasped, the effects and unintended consequences a little hazy;
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491>;>>

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

While I'm always glad to read about Kahneman and Tversky and heirs, and I agreed with the last paragraph, but I think it was the "theory" that was hazy and the smaller points readily grasped.

For example, "A refusal to accept that individual freedoms sometimes have to be curtailed for the general good is an extreme position even for a neoclassical economist to take, and it is alien to the traditions of the Democratic Party."

That's downright silly. Just look at the split between Milton Friedman and John Kenneth Galbraith. Which one was allied with Democrats, and what's the difference between "libertarian paternalism" and market socialism?

Even then while Friedman claimed government intervention is uneconomic, the Chicago School was busy organizing military dictatorships or running the IMF, and always involved with massive government spending, and almost always borrowed money with abandon despite lip service to inflation.

In other words, most economist claim the wonders of the market but always turn to the government to help their favored industries. For now they're back to the drawing board and spinning wheels into grants -- and they've got little to say about our future investments being swallowed whole by crooks and the gullible.

So what's the point about the phony old labels of the economists of the elite?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 6, 2008 10:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

BD posted:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/supply_side.pdf

That group is connected to Clinton and Obama, so their papers should be good indicators.



This post was modified by spacedface on 2008-11-06 18:50:19

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)